Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[popeman]

Tom, thanks for coming back into the ring. I prefer tag-apologetics rather than beat-up-on-the Catholic-guy!

OK, you’al will have to give me some breathing room. I am getting posts from several of you at one time and many of these posts have multiple questions/statements. It’s like being a Russian and discovering that the nukes coming in have multiple warheads, so now I need to pick-choose what incoming to take out first. Also, since I was banned for a week (I feel unjustly but already addressed adequately) it kept me away from the forum to post, so I may be playing catch-up.

I think I need to go to the forum “non-Catholic Christians” and ask for your official definition of a Protestant. I say that because it appears that your conception of “Protestant” is in complete contradiction of the professional literature. Now, if you all wish to start a new dictionary or encyclopedia to present a new Protestant definition and/or a new “Christian” definition then by all means, do so. Many on this site would like to see that. Just for the record the dictionary states:

PROTESTANT: 1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church. 2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

Now the encyclopedia states: Protestantism originated in the 16th century Protestant Reformation. Protestant doctrine, also known in continental European traditions as Evangelical doctrine, is in opposition to that of Roman Catholicism. It typically holds that Scripture (rather than tradition or ecclesiastic interpretation of Scripture) is the source of revealed truth…The word Protestant is derived from the Latin protestari meaning publicly declare which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Luther's documents. Since that time, the term Protestantism has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify that they are not Roman Catholics….other groups, such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, reject traditional Protestantism as another deviation from Christianity, while perceiving themselves to be restorationists. [Karen’s position is appreciated via this point, but she can also see my view that LDS may not be “tradition Protestants” but have some semblance to this group].

This all being said, lets also take a look at “Christian” in the dictionary and encyclopedia. Dictionary states:


The encyclopedia states: A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. [That pretty much covers all of us, but the controversy still holds as to who’s OT…Hebrew or Greek?] ……The first known usage of the term Χριστιανός (khristianos) can be found in the New Testament in Acts 11:26: "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." …The earliest recorded use of the term outside the Bible was when Tacitus recorded that Nero blamed the "Christians" for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. [It is nice to see that history can prove the existence of a body of believers outside written Scripture, ie, my reason to show what these early Christians also believed/worshiped in is also historical available, but then denied by Protestants].

This all being said, why not have some of you come up with some professional literature with the definition of a Protestant or Christian that is historical different from what has been held since Christ and 1517.

All of your admonitions that the older Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonical books is simply a mute point. The fact is that Protestants do not consider them as sacred scripture, God inspired, ie, again a Protestant doctrinal position.

Another question to the forum authors/readers. Do you concur with Steve that Timothy was not a Bishop? I have heard that he was a bishop from both sides of the Christian isle… Timothy is praised by Paul for his knowledge of the Scriptures, and is said to have been acquainted with the Scriptures since childhood. According to later tradition, Paul ordained Timothy as bishop of Ephesus in the year 65, where he served for 15 years. In the year 80 (though some sources place the event during the year 97, with Timothy dying at age 80), Timothy tried to halt a pagan procession of idols, ceremonies, and songs. In response to his preaching of the gospel, the angry pagans beat him, dragged him through the streets, and stoned him to death.

Regardless, if Timothy was a bishop or not, he was a very bright guy about Scripture. So if your point is to minimize Timothy by stating he was not a Bishop, it is a marginal point that does merit much discussion. Timothy was still in doubt how he should conduct himself as a Christian. That is an all-encompassing question, from his daily walk to Scripture.

Steve, I am going to be as presumptive as you in your statement “I do not see any instructions here about going to the church for answers about how to behave. I see Paul referring to his own letters (scripture) as the authoritative instructions for proper conduct in the church.” Everything in your statement is about “I”, how “you” see things. Therefore, “I” have just as strong, rightful and presumptive opinion and can say “I see all sorts of instructions in Scripture where the Church tells a Christian how to behave”.

That is why I keep driving the point home, it is not about how “you” see things, how “you” or anyone interprets Scripture to "their" understanding. I would love to place you in a Time Machine (I'm sure you'd send me back to the cave Man days) and send you back to Antioch with Paul/Barnabus. You would be one of the church members at Antioch when Paul/Barnabus came up for a visit. After arguing with you, Paul/Barnabus would tell you that they need to go to the church for a definitive/mandated decision on this matter you were arguing about. But, you would say “No, I do not see it that way. I will not go to the Church at Jerusalem. I will not submit to a mandated decision of that Church”. Soon, you would simply be starting your own doctrinal Church as to how you believe with others who believe in your interpretation. In the meantime, the rest of the Church would be rejoicing in the mandated decision from the church at Jerusalem.

You state “I go to Paul's writings, and those of the other apostles as well. If you were to make these documents your primary source of instruction, then you would do well.”. Well, let me state that Luther did that, so did Calvin, so did Zwingli, so did Wesley…on and on and on….and now Steve Gregg…they all went to “Paul’s writings” and each and every one of them came up with their own doctrinal beliefs. The devil is the author of confusion. So why would I (Catholics) want to go to Paul’s writing to get a self-interpretation and split from the Church just to start another Church doctrine?

Scripture gives a great hint to the self-destructiveness of self-interpretation in 2 Peter 3:16: “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” There are deep spiritual/scriptural matters that sometimes are difficult to understand, so why would I, or any other Christian, want to self-interpret Scripture?

Since the devil loves confusion he also loves division and split opinions about doctrine. History demonstrates that Protestants live to protest, for self-determination, self-interpretation…they certainly split with Catholic Christianity and continue to do the same amongst themselves starting new doctrinal churches constantly. That is why I call you and others Protestants. By the very nature of definitions/encyclopedias and your Christian positions you are Protestants and the fruits of your labor are love, but also confusion.

Peace & welcome back Tom (ask your brother to come into this site). Popeman

[Paidion]

Yes this is a true disciple but not the Church. They are part of the Church.

Tom, are you saying that it is not necessary to be a disciple of Christ in order to be part of the Church?

Just for the record the dictionary states:

PROTESTANT:
1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

The second definition of "Protestant" is the one I go by. Thus, I am not a Protestant.

According to the first definition, (if it did not specify "Western Christian") the apostle Peter was a Protestant.

[steve]

Hi Popeman,

The participants here are not a homogenous group (like a denomination), so not all will respond to your concerns in exactly the same manner. I will respond to your comments as they apply to my case:

I think I need to go to the forum “non-Catholic Christians” and ask for your official definition of a Protestant. I say that because it appears that your conception of “Protestant” is in complete contradiction of the professional literature. Now, if you all wish to start a new dictionary or encyclopedia to present a new Protestant definition and/or a new “Christian” definition then by all means, do so. Many on this site would like to see that.

I reserve the right to call myself by whatever label fits my beliefs. You have given, as part of your definition of a Protestant: "Protestants live to protest." If I do not fit that description, am I not entitled to object to a label that is thus defined?

It is true that my not being an adherent to Catholicism would make me, by the definitions of the lexicographers, a "Protestant." However, this is not a term used of any group in the scriptures. The followers of Christ are called "disciples" and, later, "Christians." Since I am committed to following Christ and the scriptures, I do not embrace titles different from those that He or they would assign to a person of my persuasion.

The dictionary definition is there to tell you what is meant by a person calling himself a Protestant. His use of that word means that he approves of a certain accepted definition of the term. The dictionary tells you what the definition is and what he is trying to tell you about himself by adopting that label. But the dictionary says that any "Christian" who is neither Catholic, Anglican nor Eastern Orthodox falls into the category of "Protestant." Then the dictionary defines a "Christian" as "a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion..."

What if I am not an adherent to any religion, but to a Person? Then I am not what the dictionary calls a Christian, and thus not what the dictionary calls a Protestant (which has the word "Christian" in its definition). I am not a member or advocate of any religion at all. I am a follower of Jesus, who established a kingdom with subjects, not a religion with members. That is why I do not accept the term "Protestant." You yourself said that what you call a Protestant is one who "protests." I have informed you that my beliefs are not a protest, but a positive embracing of Jesus as the Messiah.

All of your admonitions that the older Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonical books is simply a mute point. The fact is that Protestants do not consider them as sacred scripture, God inspired, ie, again a Protestant doctrinal position.

I believe you mean "a moot point." If I am one of those to whose "admonitions" you allude, I would clarify that I was never suggesting that we accept the Apocrypha as scripture. What I said is that the straw-man Protestant you described as saying these books are full of "false teaching" did not represent the Protestant position. I said nothing more of this, and I said nothing inaccurate.

So if your point is to minimize Timothy by stating he was not a Bishop, it is a marginal point that does merit much discussion.

Why would you say I was minimizing Timothy's position? It is you that are lowering his status by calling him a bishop. I said he was an apostle, one who appoints bishops. If that is minimizing his role, then you have minimized it even more by demoting him to bishop status.

Timothy was still in doubt how he should conduct himself as a Christian. That is an all-encompassing question, from his daily walk to Scripture.

I don't quite understand the second sentence here, but I am curious as to why you said Timothy "was still in doubt how he should conduct himself as a Christian." There is nothing in the Bible that mentions any such doubts. Timothy was a seasoned leader of the church, I don't really think he had any significant doubts about "how he should conduct himself as a Christian." Perhaps you infer it merely from the fact that Paul wrote to give him instructions? I guess I can't see where you are getting your information from.

However, it is plain that, whether Timothy had doubts and questions, or not, we have no record of Paul sending him to the church for answers. Paul said that his writing to Timothy (the contents of his letters) was intended to supply all the knowledge necessary to help him lead the church. I am open to being shown where the scriptures make your point, but you'll have to help me out here.

Steve, I am going to be as presumptive as you in your statement “I do not see any instructions here about going to the church for answers about how to behave. I see Paul referring to his own letters (scripture) as the authoritative instructions for proper conduct in the church.” Everything in your statement is about “I”, how “you” see things. Therefore, “I” have just as strong, rightful and presumptive opinion and can say “I see all sorts of instructions in Scripture where the Church tells a Christian how to behave”.

I don't know why it should be presumptuous for a man, when told that a verse of scripture teaches a certain thing, to respond, "I have looked at the passage to which you directed me, and I do not see in it what you told me I would find there." Instead of calling this response "presumptuous," it would be more helpful to show me the words in the verse under consideration that say the thing you are saying.

That is why I keep driving the point home, it is not about how “you” see things, how “you” or anyone interprets Scripture to "their" understanding. I would love to place you in a Time Machine (I'm sure you'd send me back to the cave Man days) and send you back to Antioch with Paul/Barnabus. You would be one of the church members at Antioch when Paul/Barnabus came up for a visit. After arguing with you, Paul/Barnabus would tell you that they need to go to the church for a definitive/mandated decision on this matter you were arguing about. But, you would say “No, I do not see it that way. I will not go to the Church at Jerusalem. I will not submit to a mandated decision of that Church”. Soon, you would simply be starting your own doctrinal Church as to how you believe with others who believe in your interpretation. In the meantime, the rest of the Church would be rejoicing in the mandated decision from the church at Jerusalem.

You represent my attitude as being "I will not submit to a mandated decision of that Church." But your scenario of being taken back to apostolic times changes the meaning of "a mandated decision of the church." You see, I am prepared to submit to every decision of the apostles, and that is who I would find making the decisions for "the church" in your scenario. Of course I would submit to their decisions. In fact, this is the very reason that I follow their writings today. I still believe in submitting to their decisions. What I don't submit to is the decisions of a human institution that has itself failed to submit to the teachings of the apostles. I gave you one example (which I would still like for you to address) in your church's ordination of unmarried bishops, when an apostle commanded that bishops be married men (if you do not know where that is found, it is in my last post to you).

Your church defies the decisions of the apostles. I must choose either to obey the apostolic authority (found in the writings of the real apostles) or else submit to an organization that claims for itself apostolic authority and the right to change the decisions of the apostles. Obviously, any organization might make such claims for itself (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Eastern Orthodox Chrurches all make such claims for themselves, as does the Roman Catholic Church). Why should I specifically believe these claims when made by the Roman Catholics? Why not some of these other groups? Is it not better to play it safe and go with the "real apostles" that Jesus appointed? For my money it is.

You state “I go to Paul's writings, and those of the other apostles as well. If you were to make these documents your primary source of instruction, then you would do well.”. Well, let me state that Luther did that, so did Calvin, so did Zwingli, so did Wesley…on and on and on….and now Steve Gregg…they all went to “Paul’s writings” and each and every one of them came up with their own doctrinal beliefs. The devil is the author of confusion. So why would I (Catholics) want to go to Paul’s writing to get a self-interpretation and split from the Church just to start another Church doctrine?

I am afraid that our attempts to communicate are challenged by our having diametrically opposed ideas of what it means to be a disciple of Christ. In your view, and the view of most Protestants as well, being a "Christian" means deciding which "doctrines" (meaning theological propositions) one will embrace. In my view, being a Christian, or a disciple, means deciding which Lord you will serve.

Therefore, in your view, if people have different theological propositions (what you call "doctrines") from one another, they are necessarily divided into opposing religious camps. In my view, people are divided only on the basis of which Lord they are serving. Therefore, like the band of the first apostles, who certainly had a variety of theological opinions, but who were all serving the same Lord, I believe that I am in unity with all who follow Jesus, regardless of their creeds.

Because of this, I might or might not be in fellowship with Luther, Calvin, Wesley, et al. If I am, it is not because of my agreement with their opinions, but because of their following the same Master as myself. If I am divided from any of these men, it is not because I have some different opinions from theirs, but because they fail to exhibit the marks of following Jesus as Lord. It's an entirely different set of categories, with which you may be entirely unfamiliar, and which you may not be able immediately to comprehend.

Scripture gives a great hint to the self-destructiveness of self-interpretation in 2 Peter 3:16: “He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” There are deep spiritual/scriptural matters that sometimes are difficult to understand, so why would I, or any other Christian, want to self-interpret Scripture?

Well, perhaps because you will stand as a responsible individual before God for your obedience. If Christ should say to me, "Why did you call me 'Lord, Lord,' but you did not do what I commanded?" I might say, "Well, my bishops told me that you did not mean what you said, so I listened to them instead." I suspect that He might say, "Did I not warn you about making this mistake? Do you not remember when I said, 'But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ'?"

I confess, I would hardly know how I might answer.

But you are no different from me, in this respect of making your own religious choices. Both of us have personally decided what we will believe. We both have many religious options. I have chosen to follow Jesus, not an organization. You say I need the organization's help in making such decisions. However, you chose (just as independently as I made my choice) to join the Roman Church. Did you need the help of any group to make that decision? Didn't you simply make a decision based upon reasons and evidences that you deemed adequate to compel you to make that decision? How is that different from me. You made an independent decision to follow one option, and I made an independent decision to follow another option. You trusted your intelligence to weigh the data and to choose accordingly, and I trusted my intelligence to do the same thing. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that we are different in this respect.

Since the devil loves confusion he also loves division and split opinions about doctrine. History demonstrates that Protestants live to protest, for self-determination, self-interpretation…they certainly split with Catholic Christianity and continue to do the same amongst themselves starting new doctrinal churches constantly. That is why I call you and others Protestants

.

That is a non-sequitur. First you describe people who "live to protest," and who "start new doctrinal churches," and then say that this is why you use that label of me and others here. Why would you think that any of us "live to protest"? Which of us have started new doctrinal churches? I have not started any.

I believe that you have certain presuppositions about non-Catholics which are based, partly on your experiences with some Protestants in your past, and partly on a paradigm of controversy that only applies to people of a religious nature, like yourself and many Protestants. Your assessment of the categories is outdated, however, and based upon the assumption that the battles of the sixteenth century still define the categories in Christian dialogue. Some of us are not still living in the sixteenth century, so your issues strike us (or me, at least) as a strange anachronism—something for the museums. Those who have broken free from both Roman Catholic and Protestant "religion" in order to follow the King are dialoguing about entirely different issues, when given free rein to discuss what interests us, and what matters in our Christian lives. Debates about things like the Apocrypha, when brought up, are extremely marginal in, or absent entirely from, our list of concerns.

This forum allows Roman Catholics (and anyone else) to raise questions and controversies for discussion, but it would help if you also listened to us, found out what we really believe, and aim your remarks at the real issues, so that you are not shooting at an imaginary target, or an enemy that is not here, but is over at the Calvinist message boards.

[Jill]

.

[tom]

Yes this is a true disciple but not the Church. They are part of the Church.

Tom, are you saying that it is not necessary to be a disciple of Christ in order to be part of the Church?

Well you bring up an interesting point but one that I think makes no sense. Disciples are part of the Church but not THE Church. We have been talking about an authoritative Church. If you're saying all have to be disciples in order to be part of the Church I think you better have a very open definition of disciple!

Tom

[tom]

Popeman,

I have been on the forum but over in the "Kingdom" thread. I don't like to jump around from one thread to another! Thanks for the support but remember we're all Christians, some of us just have it right!!!

Tom

[SteveF]

For those interested in a more detailed account on the origin of the word Protestant, Alister McGrath recounts the historical events in his book “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”. It appears the word found its origin not as a protest against RC doctrine per se, but rather as a protest against the suppression of religious liberty.

I was going to paste the section from the book on the forum but hesitated due to copyright laws. Instead I found it in a book preview at the following link. You can read it from page 5 to 7.

http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/i ... 0060822132

[RND]

So, what are so called protestants protesting?

[darinhouston]

I find this an incredibly useless debate -- what difference does it make? Based on some definitions, we're all catholic, so the meaning of the word protestant is really not all that useful. If the RCC among us can't appreciate that there is no unified body or institution or council of non-catholics, then we're not likely to convince them. I think their point is made in that we have no "official" Canon if we have no official institution/council to declare the same. So, what's left to discuss on this point?

[tom]

Darin,

I find this an incredibly useless debate -- what difference does it make? Based on some definitions, we're all catholic, so the meaning of the word protestant is really not all that useful. If the RCC among us can't appreciate that there is no unified body or institution or council of non-catholics, then we're not likely to convince them. I think their point is made in that we have no "official" Canon if we have no official institution/council to declare the same. So, what's left to discuss on this point?

This whole thread had nothing to do with the definition of Protestant. The reason it was brought up was, you all say I'm neither Protestant and surely not RCC! What's being pointed out is you are Protestant but you can't say it because it will put you into a corner you can't get out of.

What's left to discuss is if you're not Protestant then you have no right to say RCC's are wrong in using the Apocrypha. In saying this you should be adding them to your Bible and use them without hesitation. After all you admit " we have no "official" Canon if we have no official institution/council to declare the same."

Tom